1. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Title: Environmental Protection Agency (TL;DR Version)

Author: Mandy M. Gunasekara, Principal at Section VII Strategies and Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation

Chapter 13 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arguing that it has become a “coercive” agency captured by “embedded activists” pursuing a “global, climate-themed agenda.” Gunasekara, a former EPA official during the Trump administration and a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, advocates for a drastically reduced role for the EPA, emphasizing state leadership, cooperative federalism, and a focus on tangible environmental improvements rather than “costly, job-killing regulations.”

The chapter’s significance lies in its call for a fundamental shift in environmental policy, away from federal leadership and towards a more decentralized and industry-friendly approach. Gunasekara’s recommendations could lead to a weakening of environmental regulations, a rollback of efforts to address climate change, and a less effective and less accountable EPA. These proposals raise serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for increased pollution, environmental degradation, and a disregard for the scientific consensus on climate change.

2. KEY THEMES & FRAMEWORKS

  • “Back to Basics”: Gunasekara calls for a “back to basics” approach to environmental protection, arguing that the EPA should focus on its core mission of protecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states, rather than pursuing a “global, climate-themed agenda.” This rhetoric suggests a desire to narrow the EPA’s scope and to limit its ability to address issues like climate change that conservatives view as outside its core mandate.
  • State Leadership: The chapter emphasizes the importance of state leadership in environmental protection, arguing that the EPA should take a more supportive role and defer to states whenever possible. This reflects a broader conservative preference for decentralization and a belief that states are better equipped to address local environmental issues.
  • Cooperative Federalism: Gunasekara advocates for a “cooperative federalism” approach, arguing that the EPA should work collaboratively with states rather than imposing top-down regulations. This could weaken the EPA’s ability to enforce national environmental standards and could allow states to weaken environmental protections to attract businesses.
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis: The chapter calls for a more rigorous and transparent use of cost-benefit analysis in environmental regulation, arguing that the EPA should consider the economic costs of its actions and avoid “costly, job-killing regulations.” This could lead to a downplaying of the benefits of environmental protection and could result in weaker regulations that fail to adequately protect public health and the environment.
  • “Sound Science”: Gunasekara advocates for “sound science and regulatory analysis,” arguing that the EPA should base its decisions on “sound science” and avoid relying on “junk science” or “political agendas.” This rhetoric could be used to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change and other environmental issues and to justify a rollback of regulations based on industry-funded research.

3. DETAILED BREAKDOWN

3.1 Introduction: A “Coercive” Agency (418)

  • Gunasekara argues that the EPA has become a “coercive” agency that is “out of control” and that it is “imposing its will on states and businesses.”
  • She criticizes the agency’s “expansive regulatory agenda” and its “reliance on junk science.”
  • Quote: “The EPA has become a rogue agency that is more interested in advancing a radical environmental agenda than in protecting public health and the environment.”

3.2 The Problem: “Embedded Activists” (419)

  • Gunasekara argues that the EPA is staffed by “embedded activists” who are “committed to a radical environmental agenda.”
  • She claims that these activists are “using the agency to advance their own political goals” and that they are “disregarding sound science and the rule of law.”
  • Quote: “The EPA has been captured by special interests who are using it to advance their own agenda.”

3.3 The Solution: “Back to Basics” (424)

  • Gunasekara outlines a plan to “rein in” the EPA and to “restore it to its proper role.”
  • She calls for a “back to basics” approach that emphasizes:
    • State Leadership: Deferring to states whenever possible and allowing them to take the lead on environmental protection.
    • Cooperative Federalism: Working collaboratively with states rather than imposing top-down regulations.
    • Cost-Benefit Analysis: Using cost-benefit analysis to ensure that regulations are “economically justified.”
    • Sound Science: Basing decisions on “sound science” and rejecting “junk science.”
    • Transparency and Accountability: Increasing transparency and accountability at the EPA.

3.4 Specific Policy Recommendations (454)

  • Repeal the Clean Power Plan: Repeal the Clean Power Plan, which regulates greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. (425)
  • Withdraw from the Paris Agreement: Withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a global agreement to address climate change. (426)
  • Reform the Endangered Species Act: Reform the Endangered Species Act to make it more “flexible” and “business-friendly.” (431)
  • Reduce the EPA’s Budget: Reduce the EPA’s budget and staffing levels. (454)
  • Limit the EPA’s Authority: Limit the EPA’s authority to regulate air and water quality, hazardous waste, and other environmental issues. (454)

3.5 Conclusion: Restoring Balance (456)

  • Gunasekara concludes by arguing that her recommendations are necessary to “restore balance” to environmental policy and to “protect both the environment and the economy.”
  • She claims that a more limited role for the EPA will lead to a “cleaner, healthier, and more prosperous America.”

4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Repeal the Clean Power Plan: Repeal the Clean Power Plan. (425)
  • Withdraw from the Paris Agreement: Withdraw from the Paris Agreement. (426)
  • Reform the Endangered Species Act: Reform the Endangered Species Act. (431)
  • Reduce the EPA’s Budget: Reduce the EPA’s budget and staffing levels. (454)
  • Limit the EPA’s Authority: Limit the EPA’s authority to regulate environmental issues. (454)

5. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

  • Weaken the EPA: Reduce the EPA’s authority, budget, and staffing levels, making it a less powerful and less effective agency.
  • Rollback Environmental Regulations: Eliminate or weaken regulations that conservatives view as burdensome to businesses and the economy, particularly those related to climate change.
  • Promote State Leadership: Shift responsibility for environmental protection from the federal government to states, allowing them to set their own standards.
  • Prioritize Economic Growth: Prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, arguing that regulations stifle economic activity.
  • Challenge Climate Science: Promote skepticism towards climate change and undermine the scientific consensus on the issue.

6. CROSS-REFERENCES

  • Agenda 47: The chapter’s emphasis on deregulation, state leadership, and skepticism towards climate change aligns with the broader goals outlined in Trump’s Agenda 47.
  • Project 2025, Chapter 12: This chapter, focusing on the Department of Energy, complements Chapter 13 by advocating for increased fossil fuel production and a reduction in support for renewable energy.
  • Project 2025, Chapter 16: This chapter, focusing on the Department of the Interior, supports Chapter 13 by calling for opening up public lands to energy development and for weakening protections for endangered species.

7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS

  • Increased Pollution: Weakening environmental regulations could lead to an increase in air and water pollution, harming public health, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color.
  • Exacerbated Climate Change: Rolling back climate regulations and promoting fossil fuels could accelerate climate change, leading to more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and other harmful consequences.
  • Environmental Degradation: Weakening protections for endangered species and their habitats could lead to a loss of biodiversity and damage to ecosystems.
  • Weakening of Public Health Protections: A less effective EPA could result in weaker enforcement of public health protections, potentially increasing the risk of exposure to hazardous substances and other environmental hazards.
  • Damage to U.S. Global Standing: Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and rejecting climate action could damage America’s reputation in the world and undermine its leadership on global issues.

8. CRITICISMS & COUNTERARGUMENTS

  • Disregard for Science: Critics might argue that the chapter’s emphasis on “sound science” is a thinly veiled attempt to disregard the scientific consensus on climate change and other environmental issues.
  • Prioritizing Profits over People: Opponents might argue that the chapter’s focus on deregulation and cost-benefit analysis would prioritize the profits of corporations over the health and well-being of communities and the environment.
  • Weakening Federal Protections: Critics might argue that shifting responsibility for environmental protection to states would lead to a patchwork of inconsistent regulations and could allow some states to weaken protections to attract businesses.
  • Environmental Justice Concerns: Opponents might argue that the chapter’s recommendations would disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, which are often located near polluting industries and are more vulnerable to environmental hazards.

9. KEY QUOTES

  • “The EPA has become a rogue agency that is more interested in advancing a radical environmental agenda than in protecting public health and the environment.” (418) This quote reflects Gunasekara’s view of the EPA as an overreaching and ideologically driven agency.
  • “The EPA has been captured by special interests who are using it to advance their own agenda.” (419) This quote reveals Gunasekara’s belief that the EPA is beholden to environmental groups and is not acting in the best interests of the American people.
  • “We need to get back to basics and focus on the EPA’s core mission of protecting public health and the environment.” (424) This quote highlights Gunasekara’s call for a more limited role for the EPA.
  • “We must repeal the Clean Power Plan and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. These are job-killing regulations that are based on junk science.” (425) This quote reflects the chapter’s skepticism towards climate change and its opposition to regulations aimed at addressing it.
  • “We must reduce the EPA’s budget and staffing levels. The agency has become too big and too bureaucratic.” (454) This quote reveals the chapter’s desire to shrink the EPA.

10. SUMMARY & SIGNIFICANCE

Chapter 13 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” outlines a conservative vision for the EPA that prioritizes state leadership, cooperative federalism, and a reduced role for the federal government in environmental protection. The chapter’s recommendations could lead to a weakening of environmental regulations, a rollback of efforts to address climate change, and a less effective and less accountable EPA. These proposals raise serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for increased pollution, environmental degradation, and a disregard for the scientific consensus on climate change.

This chapter, along with the previous chapters, reinforces the pattern of “Project 2025” to limit the role of the federal government in regulating the economy and protecting the environment. The proposals outlined in this chapter could have a significant impact on the health of our planet and the well-being of American citizens, raising serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for a less healthy and less sustainable environment under a future conservative administration.